Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Individual Suing As A “DBA” Or Suing On Behalf Of A Corporate Entity Property Saddled With Attorney’s Fee For Losing A Suit With Contractual Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717

Nonsignatories Stepping Into the Shoes Of Contractual Signatories Can Be Liable For Fees.                In Del Rio v. Weis, Case No. A167335 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 17, 2024) (unpublished), Mr. Del Rio sued Homeowners for breach of a home remodel construction contract between Mr. Del Rio’s business, JODT, and Homeowners.  Homeowners won and were […]

Section 1717, Section 998: Because Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Its Unlawful Detainer Action Without Prejudice, Santisas Prevented Recovery Of Contractual Attorney’s Fees By The Other Side Despite The Winning 998 Offer

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

However, Plaintiff Did Pay The Other Side $118,372.65 In Routine Costs.                In Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates, Case No. E081228 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 19, 2024) (published), Quality leased 73 acres from Riverside Mining, operating a quarry on the land.  Quality brought a civil lawsuit against Riverside Mining for infringing its leasehold,

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendants Winning A Demurrer Dismissal Without Leave Was Contractually Prevailing Party Under Section 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Conspiracy And Unjust Enrichment Claims Fell Within An Operating Agreement Contractual Dispute Ambit.                Many contractual fee disputes depend on whether the claims were “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717; and if so, who prevailed.  In Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC, Case No. C099278 (3d Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), defendants won a

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Prevailing Defendant’s Dismissal Of Cross-Complaint After Winning Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Santisas Rule Applied, With Dismissed Cross-Complaint Only Raising Contractual Claims.                In Colaco v. Marcum LLP, Case No. B326252 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sued his accounting firm for misrepresentation after losing money in some investments, with the defendant obtaining summary judgment and then voluntarily dismissing a cross-complaint containing indemnity and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717: $70,635 Attorney’s Fees Award Favorable To Nonsignatory To A Contract, Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Nonsignatory Did Not Seek To Enforce The Contract, With No Judgment Enforcement Fees Available To The Nonsignatory.                Crooymans v. Foumberg, Case No. B325110 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 18, 2024) (unpublished) is a stark reminder that a nonsignatory to a contract, more often than not, does not face fee exposure under

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Intervening Insurer Not Responsible For Fees To Prevailing Party, While Litigant Losing Alter Ego Arguments Was Responsible For Fees

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Lower Court Also Did Not Err By Awarding Insurer Rate Fees To A Prevailing Party, Apportioning Out Noncompensable Fees.                Yee v. Weinberg, Case No. A163850 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 5, 2024) (unpublished) is a situation where a plaintiff landlord prevailed against defendant tenant, with landlord receiving some fees (but none against

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In CC&R Flag Pole Placement Dispute Was An Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Applied And Plaintiffs Were The Unqualified Winners.                In Rowan v. Hilliard, Case No. D081687 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed against defendants/cross-complainants in a flag pole placement dispute under CC&Rs, which had a fees clause giving the lower court the authority (“shall have the authority”) to award reasonable

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Lower Court Erroneously Denied Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Who Obtained A Majority Of What She Wanted In A Loan Agreement Case With A Fees Clause Only Covering A Judicial Foreclosure Case

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Under Civil Code Section 1717, Lack of Recital Saying Contract Was Negotiated/Executed With Counsel Representation Kept The Clause From Applying Narrowly, With The Matter Remanded For Purposes Of Determining If Plaintiff Was The Prevailing Party For Fees Even Though Plaintiff Did Not Pursue Routine Costs Recovery.             In Andrade v. Western Riverside Council of Governments,

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To A Parties’ Successor Under An Easement Settlement Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Clause Did Encompass The Parties And Their Successors.             In Elusive 8307, LLC v. Canterman, Case No. B321096 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), prior owners of plaintiff's and defendant's adjacent properties entered into a settlement agreement granting an easement to plaintiff over a portion of defendant’s property.  Plaintiff lost an easement

Section 1717, Unlicensed Contractors: Unlicensed Contractor Obtaining $28,413 Contractual Fee Award Was Affirmed On Appeal Because It Was “On The Contract”

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Breadth Of Clause Led To The Result.             Co-contributor Mike had wished we had this decision many moons ago because the Second District, in an unpublished decision before the law had evolved, denied fees to an unlicensed contractor only seeking attorney’s fees, not construction compensation, in an arbitration proceeding.             In Rodgers v. HB Construction,

Scroll to Top